October 17, 2011

The Supreme Court was a fitting venue for this demonstration both to honor Dr. King and demonstrate solidarity with the #OWS (Occupy Wall Street) movement. As Dr. West said prior to being arrested, there is “a relation between corporate greed and what goes on too often in Supreme Court decisions.”

In Democracy Matters, West makes this point in far greater detail “(The) illicit marriage of corporate and political elites — so blatant and flagrant in our time — not only undermines the trust of informed citizens in those who rule over them. It also promotes the pervasive sleepwalking of the populace, who see that the false prophets are handsomely rewarded with money, status, and access to more power.” (p. 4)

How is that "far greater detail"? With no reference to Supreme Court at all, it seems like less detail. Or by "detail," did Ms. Thisltethwaite mean verbosity? Thisltethwaite continues:

I believe, when future accounts of this era are written, historians will judge that the wake up call for many people in America was in early 2010 with that Supreme Court decision. The winter of 2010 is what led to the #OWS demonstrations in the fall of 2011.

Can we as citizens accept this definition of person, and of speech? This is what Dr. West, by his action on the steps of the Supreme Court, is asking us to stop and ponder. Corporation as person? A soulless legal entity as human being? No. We can’t and we must not. As I have written before, God didn’t create corporations.

And God didn't create The Washington Post, which is a corporation. Could Congress criminalize WaPo's reporting about political candidates in the 2-month period preceding an election? It would protect us from distorted ravings like yours, Ms. Thisltethwaite. What do you say? You must say yes! I mean, if you care about coherence. And I know you don't.

... Dr. West did not call for anger, he actually called for “deep love” in his remarks before his arrest, and he spoke his solidarity even with the police, those who were about to arrest him.

This is worthy of another jail, at another time. In 1963, Dr. King wrote, in his Letter from Birmingham Jail....

The question is can the institution that employs him be sued for fraud for pretending to be a university and pretending to educate people? And isn't his employer also a corporation? He too, works for the devil.

It cheapens the struggles of King, et al, to compare the "wrongs" people endure under Citizens United with the abject evils of segregation. If this is the only thing West can come up to protest against, things must be going pretty well.

Every left-of-center fame junkie is throwing his elbows around to make space for himself on the bandwagon. I sincerely hope they keep it up, and the more the merrier. This kind of behavior does not impress or convince independent voters, and they're the ones who will vote in the Republican candidate.

Anybody can be a corporation. A group of doctors. A quilting club. Regional group of contractors. Association of accountants. Group of bloggers.

ANYBODY.

Just because some people decided to incorporate themselves, they and the group they represent should be stripped of their First Amendment rights? The right to express a political opinion as represented by the incorporated group. The right to buy advertising.

Corporations ARE people, in the sense that they are owned by the shareholders. In a small non public (meaning shares are not sold on the public markets) corporation the shareholders are often the officers of the corporation.

In a large publicly owned corporation the officers are elected BY the shareholders and everyone who owns shares from the mutual fund that holds shares on the behalf of all of the investors..... all the way down to Ma and Pa Frickett are voters in the corporation.

Corporations are people and represent people. You don't get to pick and choose WHICH corporations or groups you like and don't like and disenfranchise the ones you hate. Equal protection under the laws.

Wealthy greedy people help elect Obama in 2008 and we can be sure West voted for him and wealthy freedy people will try to reelect him. So is West going to make a principaled stand or yet another line of B.S. I guess will have to ax him.

Citizens United v. FEC was a decision about free speech, not political donations by corporations. The Usurper pushed the same nonsense as West at the State of the Union speech. Basically what the Marxists hope for is to limit speech of the Corporations that don't agree w/ them, and allow Newspapers, which are corporations, and on board the Marxist program, to say whatever they want--- selective Freedom of Speech, or selecting the speech they agree with.

Read Scalia's part of the decision--- ALL SPEECH is protected, no matter from WHERE it comes. The bottom line is that SPEECH is protected, not whether "Corporations are people".

Obama is promoting the lie that the decision is about Corporate donations to politicians--- No it's not--- it's about the ability of Corporations to buy advertizing during the election cycle.

I do support the de-personalization of corporations. I do believe that only a real living breathing person should be able to donate to a candidate. And yes, that also would bar other groups from giving too! Large donations should be open for public scrutiny. That way, if, say Bill Gates or Al Gore or David Koch buys a candidate, we can know it.

what's rich is that these clowns, who are demanding that others provide them a free education, free health care, free housing, free condoms, a big minimum salary and free debt forgiveness without lifting a fucking finger are lecturing the rest of us on the evils of "greed." What a fucking joke these "occupy" people are. Their brains are occupied by a fucking disease called liberalism.

sonicfrog said... "I do support the de-personalization of corporations. I do believe that only a real living breathing person should be able to donate to a candidate."

Citizens v. FEC has to do w/ free speech, and the ability of Corporations to buy advertizing. It matters not whether Corporations are "people", and has nothing to do w/ campaign contributions. Maybe you should read the case.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

do idiots like Corndog West see the inherent contradiction in their rants against corporate greed and demands that corporations aren't people? If corporations aren't people, how can they possess the desires to gain more wealth and keep it for itself? How can a legal entity be greedy? Greed is a human desire. And who the fuck do these occupy idiots makes the decision at corporations? people, right?

The "tangent" is based on the wrong (purposefully) analysis of Citizens v. FEC by West (and Obama). The case has nothing to do w/ political contributions by Corporations. Maybe you should read the case.

I've heard depersonalization of corporations as a potential demand of OWS, as well as a few other places. While it certainly wouldn't effect Citizens United ( as it was not decided based on corporate personhood ) it surely would have many other consequences.

Anyone know enough about it to enlighten us on some of those consequences?

What Scott said. I was not commenting on CU as much as simply expressing a thought on my unease concerning a corporation's ability to donate cash to a candidate, even if it's an indirect process.

As far as CU goes, I don't have much of a problem with the decision. Personally, I think the effect of political advertising a bit overblown anyway. I mean, really, how many people would have been persuaded by the anti-Hillary film anyway or its advertizement anyway? Plus, doesn't the growth of the internet significantly alter the political advertising landscape anyway. A corporation can spend a zillion dollars on an ad, but if it's not very effective, than that was nothing but a waste of money (but helped with the employment numbers). All you need is some clever average Joe who is good with flash to make a neat ad and post it on you tube. If it goes viral, then the average citizen does have equality in the system.

[quote]What Scott said. I was not commenting on CU as much as simply expressing a thought on my unease concerning a corporation's ability to donate cash to a candidate, even if it's an indirect process.

[/quote]

But that is already the law. The only kind of unrestricted "donation" is taking political positions that happen to align with a favored candidate. You can't really restrict this kind of "donation" without restricting what kind of political statements people can make, which was the whole point of CU.

So it's really not clear at all what exactly you are asking for. Can you perhaps be more specific as to what exactly you think needs to be changed?

"And God didn't create The Washington Post, which is a corporation. Could Congress criminalize WaPo's reporting about political candidates in the 2-month period preceding an election? It would protect us from distorted ravings like yours, Ms. Thisltethwaite. What do you say? You must say yes! I mean, if you care about coherence. And I know you don't."

Does your dean know that you are publishing things like this? Exceedingly embarrasing for a person who purports to be a law professor.

Let's take a look at the 1st Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

The Washington Post is part of the press and, thus, does not need to rely on any right of free speech allegedly possessed by a corporation.

"Just because some people decided to incorporate themselves, they and the group they represent should be stripped of their First Amendment rights? The right to express a political opinion as represented by the incorporated group. The right to buy advertising."

The people themselves are not stripped of any rights. The question is whether a form of business entity that was created under state law for the purpose of facilitating capitalization is a "person" with the kind of rights as a human being. The answer is no. To the extent that courts have in the past held that corporation's are people, they have done so for limited purposes, i.e. in order to enable the entity to enter into contracts, etc., that are consistent with the corporation's role as a business entity. Citizen's United is a wide departure from the traditional view of the corporation.

Dust Bunny Queen further writes:

"Corporations ARE people, in the sense that they are owned by the shareholders."

This is the silliest thing I've read in a long time. Is being owned by shareholders a characteristic that is common to "people"? Did you graduate high school?

"The question is whether a form of business entity that was created under state law for the purpose of facilitating capitalization is a "person" with the kind of rights as a human being." Get Real, get real. You didn't read the decision, or research it. It did not in any way say that corporations are human beings. It only said that the human beings who formed the corporations did not lose their same First Amendment rights just because they're working together.

"The Washington Post is part of the press and, thus, does not need to rely on any right of free speech allegedly possessed by a corporation." More nonsense. The press does not have any First Amendment rights not possessed by the rest of us. Ann is not bound by your peculiar misunderstanding of the decision as being about "corporate rights". "Congress shall make no law..." No law. Not for "the press" and not for the rest of us.

"Ann is not bound by your peculiar misunderstanding of the decision as being about 'corporate rights'."

That's because Ann isn't the legal scholar she purports to be. She brings new meaning to concepts like "abuse of tenure" and "sinecure." Funny how you tea partiers have no objection to wasting resources at public universities when it happens to support your ideological idiocy.

Citizens United wasn't just about corporate personhood and the First Amendment. It upheld the right of corporations to donate, but it also imposed very strict disclosure requirements. Organizations receiving donations are not permitted to keep their donor lists secret.

The resulting precedent has been used several times in the past year to force disclosure of donor lists by groups opposing same-sex marriage. There are details in this NY Times piece. Apparently, Citizens United has been "good for gay rights."